Edwards v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ THOMAS EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:25-cv-02333-MSN-tmp JURY DEMAND Memphis Light, Gas & Water, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________ Before the Court is the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10), entered June 18, 2025. The Report recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claim under 15 U.S.C. 1681s–2(a) and granting Plaintiff leave to amend his § 1681–2(b) claim within thirty days.

Plaintiff had fourteen (14) days after being served to file objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No objections have been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869–70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). For dispositive matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s proposed findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is not required to review—under a de novo or any other standard—those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See id. at 151.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The Court has reviewed the Report and the entire record in this matter and finds no clear error in the Chief Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusions. The Chief Magistrate Judge warned that: WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, ANY PARTY MAY SERVE AND FILE SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY PARTY MAY RESPOND TO ANOTHER PARTY’S OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); L.R. 72.1(g)(2). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND FURTHER APPEAL. (ECF No. 10 at PageID 22.) Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) in its entirety. Plaintiff’s claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–(2)(a) is DISMISSED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on his 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b) claim within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of July, 2025. s/ Mark S. Norris MARK S. NORRIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE